Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35603838›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2022

Clinician-Reported Impact of Germline Multigene Panel Testing on Cancer Risk Management Recommendations.

Carolyn Horton, Kirsten Blanco, Min-Tzu Lo, Virginia Speare, Holly LaDuca, Jill S Dolinsky, Allison W Kurian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carolyn HortonAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5186-6208
Kirsten BlancoAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Min-Tzu LoAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Virginia SpeareAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.
Holly LaDucaAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3745-9072
Jill S DolinskyAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3854-9539
Allison W KurianDepartment of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6175-9470
Ambry Genetics (United States) · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith increased adoption of multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer, management guidelines now include a wider range of predisposition genes. Yet little is known about whether MGPT results prompt changes to clinicians' risk management recommendations and whether those recommendations adhere to guidelines.

methodsWe assessed cancer risk management recommendations made by clinicians ordering MGPT for hereditary cancer at a diagnostic laboratory using an internet-based survey. We received paired pre- and posttest responses for 2172 patients (response rate = 14.3%). Unpaired posttest responses were received in 168 additional patients with positive results. All tests were 2-sided.

resultsClinicians reported a change in risk management recommendations for 76.6% of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, with changes to surveillance being most common (71.1%), followed by surgical (33.6%), chemoprevention (15.1%), and clinical trial (9.4%) recommendations. Clinicians recommended risk-reducing interventions more often for patients with pathogenic variants in high-risk than moderate-risk genes (P < .001), whereas surveillance recommendations were similar for high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Guideline adherence was high for surveillance (86.3%) and surgical (79.6%) recommendations. Changes to risk management recommendations occurred in 8.8% and 7.6% of patients with uncertain and negative results, respectively.

conclusionsClinicians report frequent changes to cancer risk management recommendations based on positive results in both high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Reported introduction of interventions in patients with inconclusive and negative results is rare and adherence to practice guidelines is high in patients with positive results, suggesting a low probability of harm resulting from MGPT.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGerm CellsHumansRisk Management

Identifiers

PMID35603838
PMCPMC8904928
OpenAlexW4205135245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.